We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience. If you continue to use our website we will take this to mean that you agree to our use of cookies. If you want to find out more, please view our cookie policy. Accept and Hide [x]

Many will remember the batch of e-mails hacked in 2009 that caused delight in climate change sceptic circles (see this example from James Delingpole), and considerable embarrassment to UEA; some of it concerned the famous or infamous hockeystick graph (see below) showing temperature change over the last 1000 years.

This is because, last week, the Information Commissioner published a ruling telling UEA (and in particular the Climatic Research Unit there) to release some weather data it had put together from all over the world. The successful applicant was Professor Jonathan Jones, an Oxford physicist (albeit not a climatologist) who is described as a climate change agnostic. The ruling is the latest round in a battle which has raged for some years over the transparency and robustness of the data used by the CRU in its work on man-caused global warning. The importance of the CRU’s work is reflected in its widespread use in the reports of the IPCC.

Not a breath of this background emerges from the anodyne ruling of the Information Commissioner, though one can just about detect a touch of general scepticism in the IC’s view on UEA’s attempt to claim the benefit of of various exceptions to disclosure – particularly if one remembers the background.

First, the ruling

…before we get to the highly politicised background. The CRU resisted production of the data (which everyone agreed was environmental information) on three grounds, namely that

(i) it was publicly available and easily accessible (reg.6)

(ii) disclosure would have an adverse on international relations (reg.12(5)(c)

the first seems weak in the extreme – it would have taken the use of 4 bespoke computer programmes to stitch together the various component parts into something which approached the data found in the CRU’s database. It also cuts right across (iii), the claim for intellectual property rights, which is all about precisely the opposite to open-access information. Not entirely surprisingly, the IC dismissed the intellectual property claim on the basis that the CRU had not shown that it had any real prospect of commercially exploiting the material. And this is where the tension between argument (i) and (iii) manifests itself, given that 85.5% of the data was already to be found on a specific website. The CRU’s argument that it had specific database rights was rather blunted by the fact that the request had been for a specific dataset already a year old at the date of request – and therefore not up-to-date. To come within the exception, it is not enough to show that release would be in breach of an intellectual property right, but that it would cause some harm to the rights-holder.

Enigma of the weather

Weather stations all over the globe measure temperatures daily. All open stuff, you might think. But they are all tied into governments and agencies who want to licence and profit from the use of this information. This is the background to the strongest ground of objection, namely that the was likely to be an effect on international relations.This was because the data had been obtained from national meteorological services (NMSs) all around the world, almost invariably on terms that prohibited onward transmission of the data by the CRU as its recipient. The CRU feared that if it released the information in breach of these terms, it would not be trusted with further information in the future. It did its best to obtain the consent of the various NMSs. However, some 60% either did not respond or did not give a final answer in their response – some because they may not have understood the request, as it was sent in English only. Only one NMS (Trinidad and Tobago) refused release of the data.

The IC in the end (para.78) decided that, whilst there was a plausible case about the possibility of an effect on how datasets are supplied and exchanged, this was not enough; he must be convinced that disclosure “would” have such an effect, in that a significant proportion of the NMSs would react strongly to disclosure. He also pointed out that many NMSs in Europe would be bound by the Aarhus Convention and the EU Directive on public access to environmental information – so, if push came to shove, they, the NMSs, could themselves have been ordered to release this data in their own countries. Upshot – the IC was being asked to carry out a highly speculative exercise on the likelihood on any effect, and remained unconvinced on the evidence.

A whole bunch of background

But by the time of this ruling there was quite a history. The saga is excellently covered in a series of posts by Fred Pearce on the Guardian website. As long ago as 2002, a climate sceptic and mathematician, Steve MacIntyre, asked Professor Phil Jones of CRU for a batch of weather data similar to that the subject of this ruling. More and more requests followed. These were picked up in some of the leaked e-mails; hence in 2007 Prof. Phil Jones was telling a fellow scientist that he thought “…I have managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further F[reedom]of]I[nformation] requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.” – MacIntyre’s website. In December 2008, more of the same from this Prof Jones: “When the FoI requests began here, the FoI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half-hour sessions – one at a screen – to convince them otherwise, showing them what [Climate Audit] was all about. Once they became aware of the type of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA … became very supportive.”

Like all such disputes, with mutual mistrust, it escalated. UEA, a well-recognised centre of research, were deluged with requests, and most of them were turned down. By the end of 2009, 105 FOIA/EIR requests had been made about CRU data. UEA refused 77, accepted six in part, had 11 outstanding, and had only 10 released in full. One was withdrawn. In a burst of activity, between 24 and 29 July, the CRU received 58 requests from McIntyre and his affiliates.

So, what is the forecast?

Indeed it was in this short period of 6 days in 2009 that Prof Jonathan Jones made the current request. It was artfully formulated; he wanted weather data which the CRU had sent to Georgia Tech between 2007 and 2009. The art was in that this was data which CRU was sharing with fellow climate change scientists – so, Prof J.Jones was saying, why not share it with me and other climate change sceptics.

I said at the beginning of this post that the ruling was anodyne – all the background was suppressed out of the ruling. This is because freedom of information rules ignore the interests and motives of the applicant. No matter how sensible or crazy the applicant is, the IC just has to focus on the public authority and its reasons for refusing disclosure. The IC is however only human and one wonders whether he really found it possible to ignore all this background when weighing up UEA’s reasons.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Share:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

3 comments

NikFromNYCsays:

The LA Times featured cold fusion in ’89 before its debunking. Greens were aghast!
“It’s like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” – Paul Ehrlich (mentor of John Cook of the SkepticalScience blog, author of “Climate Change Denial”)
“Clean-burning, non-polluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could knock down trees or build housing developments on farmland.” – Paul Ciotti (LA Times)
“It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy.” – Jeremy Rifkin (NY Times)
“Many people assume that cheaper, more abundant energy will mean that mankind is better off, but there is no evidence for that.” – Laura Nader (sister of Ralph)

CLIMATEGATE 101: “For your eyes only…Don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone….Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.” – Phil “Hide The Decline” Jones to Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann

P.S. In 1986 The Oxford Union debating society rejected “That the Doctrine of Creation is more valid than the Theory of Evolution” by 198 to 150.
In 2010 they accepted “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110.”

Consensus: There is an ether that pervades space. Continents don’t move (despite an obvious jigsaw puzzle match between them)! Dirty hands don’t kill surgical patients! Children are a blank slate, personality wise with no genetic influence! The best therapy is to treat human beings as if we were shocking pigeons and ringing bells for dogs. Non-coding DNA is just “junk”. Man will never fly. Viruses have nothing to do with ulcers or certain cancers. Bacterial spontaneously generate. Dietary cholesterol dominates heart disease occurrence just as CO2 dominates the latest warming trend.

Loading...

kimsays:

You’ve written a fine summary, and I agree with TinyCO2’s critique. Please remember Don Keiller who had practically the same case as Jonathan Jones, and had equal success.

Shine the light of day on this mess. We’re about a decade behind.
=============

Loading...

TinyCO2says:

You don’t mention that the 58 FOI requests the CRU received from McIntyre and his affiliates were asking for the agreements with countries Phil Jones said had refused to disclose climate data. As you wrote, McIntyre had been refused the climate data on the grounds that the CRU couldn’t release it so naturally he asked which countries were specifically against it. The CRU rejected that FOI on the grounds it would take too much time to answer for every country. Not wanting to be thwarted, McIntyre et al asked for the agreements for 5 countries at a time. In the end, Phil Jones could only produce a few such agreements because either they had not existed or been lost. As you note, agreements have been subsequently sought with mixed success. So why hadn’t he admitted that after the first FOI?

You say that the CRU was ‘deluged with requests’ but I’m not sure that given the importance of climate change a mere 105 requests up to 2009 constitute a trickle never mind a deluge.

You have to take a stand on whether global warming is an issue that should be open to public scrutiny or not and given that we are all being asked to pay for it I would say it constitutes a human right. Would you disagree?

I think the ICO commissioner was well aware of the background to these FOI requests and made the right decision.

Disclaimer

This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

Disclaimer: This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.